A Miscellany

Anonymous

Tue, 07/17/2012 - 12:19

Complaints/ Investigations/Hearings

It's amazing how much local government ethics activity there is in
this July. Here is a miscellany of issues that have arisen
in just the last few days.

Subpoena Power 
According to <a href="http://www.wfpl.org/post/ethics-commission-remains-without-subpoena-pow…; target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday on the WFPL website</a>, the Louisville ethics
commission has been trying unsuccessfully to get subpoena power
since an important proceeding against a council member was hampered
by its inability to get several witnesses to testify. 
 
There are two popular assumptions about giving local ethics
commissions subpoena power. One, it's dangerous. It will allow
unaccountable citizens to go after their officials. And two, it's
not really necessary. Neither is true. 
 
It is extremely rare for an ethics commission to wrongfully pursue
officials. And even if it were to occur, wouldn't officials want to be
able to require witnesses to appear to provide testimony that would
help their case? Or do they believe that most witnesses who refuse
to testify without a subpoena will either have special relationships with
their fellow officials or have reason to fear retaliation by their fellow officials? Or even by themselves? 
 
Subpoena power is necessary because (1) government ethics involves special
relationships and (2) ethical misconduct often occurs in an ethics
environment where retaliation is reasonably feared. The only problem is officials' reluctance to provide subpoena power, and many states, which do not provide this power to local ethics commissions (sometimes due to local official opposition). 
 
Medical and Government Ethics 
Medical ethics has nothing to do with government ethics. True or
false? Besides the fact that conflicts of interest are central to
both kinds of ethics, the two rarely intersect. But according to <a href="http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Some-question-Kern-County-heal…; target="”_blank”">an
article on the bakersfieldnow.com website yesterday</a>, they can
intersect when the subject is health insurance. 
 
The Kern County, CA health insurance plan is managed by a company owned
by a local physicians' group that, in 2010, merged with the company
owning three local hospitals soon after the county contract was
awarded. Possible problems include preferential hospital placements,
unnecessary hospital placements, and higher costs. 
 
The plan manager insists that it has saved money, but it controls
the numbers. How can one trust a company that provides managers,
doctors, and hospitals, especially when the situation has changed
since the contract was awarded and since no one has much trust for health care companies? An outside auditor would be the best
idea, but who should pay for the auditor? It would seem most
appropriate to have the plan manager foot the bill, without added compensation from the county. 
 
Public Meeting Videos 
I'm sure my town is not the only one where videos of public meetings
have either disappeared or turn out to have no sound. According to <a href="http://www.myryesoundshore.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl…; target="”_blank”">an
article last week in the Rye (NY) Sound Shore Review</a>, a
community TV employee alleged that a council member engaged in
inappropriate actions regarding the videotaping of two public
meetings, and that he was instructed to lie about the existence
of one of the videos. 
 
Community TV companies can be very politicized. The committee that
oversees them is often appointed by the officials they film, and
their managers are often politically active. These nonprofits should
be as independent as possible from politics, so that when videos
go missing, there isn't a question whether it was negligence or
intent. In this case, after the employee's complaint was dismissed without a hearing by the city's
ethics board, the employee resigned. That's a serious loss that
ethics boards should try to prevent. 
 
Proximity and Ethics Programs 
A city without an ethics program is asking for trouble. State
College, PA, home of Penn State University, has had enough trouble
lately. It doesn't need a government run by people who don't
understand that the responsible thing to do when a matter comes up
involving a property right across the street from a property you own
is to withdraw from the matter. 
 
According to <a href="http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/16/3263011/state-college-mayor-signs…; target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday in the Central Daily Times</a>, the State
College mayor actually vetoed a rezoning ordinance involving a
property across the street from one she owned. The mayor, who was
elected two years ago and had never before vetoed an ordinance, says she
was taken by surprise and didn't know what the ethical issue was.
“Everybody lives in the borough,” she said. 
 
Foot Dragging 
How many years does it take to set up an ethics program once it has
been passed? According to <a href="http://www.pro8news.com/news/local/Ethics-Commission-to-be-Implemented-…; target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday on the pro8news.com site</a>, in Laredo, TX it
takes at least six years. 
 
It took a fuss from a group called Voices in Democratic Action to
get the council to say that it would actually act on the ethics
ordinance. The group spoke out at three meetings and has threatened to sue
the city. 
 
An ad hoc committee took the first two years to "come up with
criteria." The sticking point seems to have been financial
disclosure. The point was so sticky, it stuck to the council members' shoes, forcing them to drag their feet for four years. 
 
Now the council says it will take 30 days to approve a final version
of the ethics ordinance, despite the fact that the point hasn't lost its stickiness. Voices in Democratic Action is giving the
council 90 days before it files a suit. The ethics program is likely to be lacking in disclosure. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Tags

Share This Page